NYT poll shows Pryor up 10 in Arkansas

posted at 9:21 am on April 23, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Republicans need to win six Senate seats to take control of the upper chamber, and most scenarios for victory include the Southern seats up for grabs. A poll out today from the New York Times and the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that may be tougher than first thought. Mark Pryor, considered to be one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the midterms, has a ten-point lead over his Republican challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton:

The survey underscores a favorable political environment over all for Republicans in Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas — states President Obama lost in 2012 and where his disapproval rating runs as high as 60 percent. But it also shows how circumstances in each state are keeping them in play for the Democrats a little more than six months before the midterm elections.

Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, a two-term incumbent who has been considered perhaps the most imperiled Democratic senator in the country, holds a 10-point lead over his Republican opponent, Representative Tom Cotton. Mr. Pryor, the son of a former senator, has an approval rating of 47 percent, with 38 percent of Arkansas voters disapproving of him.

Senator Kay Hagan, Democrat of North Carolina, appears more endangered as she seeks a second term. She has the support of 42 percent of voters, and Thom Tillis, the Republican state House speaker and front-runner for his party’s nomination, is at 40 percent. Unlike Mr. Pryor, however, Ms. Hagan’s approval rating, 44 percent, is the same as her disapproval number. In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, is also effectively tied with his Democratic rival, Alison Lundergan Grimes, a race that may be close because Mr. McConnell, first elected to the Senate in 1984, has the approval of only 40 percent of voters, while 52 percent disapprove. But Ms. Grimes must overcome Mr. Obama’s deep unpopularity in the state, where only 32 percent of voters approve of his performance.

With 42 percent support, Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, has an early lead in a race that is not fully formed against a large field of Republicans. Representative Bill Cassidy, the Republican front-runner, was the choice of 18 percent, and 20 percent had no opinion. There are two other Republicans in the race, but Louisiana has no primary. So all candidates of both parties will be on the ballot in November and, absent one of them taking 50 percent, there will be a runoff in December.

The outcome in Arkansas, at least, seems a little odd in contrast to other numbers inside and outside of this poll. For instance, Barack Obama’s approval rating in Arkansas within the NYT/KFF poll is 32/59, and even when his national numbers were much better in 2012, Obama lost Arkansas 37/60 to Mitt Romney. No Democratic candidate for the House even got to 40% in that election.

Furthermore, a quick check of the RCP poll average for Arkansas shows this as an outlier. That’s more true of Cotton’s standing, though, than Pryor’s. His support has been consistent at 46%, although not a great number for an incumbent, especially one with Pryor’s prominent family name. Cotton, though, also polled in the mid-40s even up to earlier this month, when he got 43% in the Talk Business poll, and going all the way back to last summer. Why would he drop to the mid-30s at this point?

I’m inclined to chalk this up as an outlier, but it still should serve as a warning to the GOP, too. It won’t be a cakewalk to beat Pryor, or for that matter to win any of these races. Republicans can run against Obama, whose approval numbers are atrocious across the board, but they’d better be clear as to what they’re for as well. Names like Pryor and Landrieu still carry weight in states Republicans should win this year.

Update: Dr. Pradheep Shanker makes an interesting catch:

https://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/458960059465072640

Usually, it’s presidential cycles that bring out significant numbers of new voters.

In other words, the Times and Kaiser have produced a sample in Arkansas that reports they voted in 2012 for Romney over Obama–by one point. But Romney carried Arkansas in 2012 by 24 points. Similarly, the Kentucky sample is +3 Romney when reality was +23. The Louisiana sample is +3 Obama in a state Obama lost by 17, and the North Carolina sample is +7 Obama in a state he lost by 3.

The whole point of question 12 is to provide a reality test for the sample. That’s why they ask that question–we know what happened in 2012, so the only thing to be learned by asking the 2012 question of the sample is to ensure that it’s a reasonably accurate snapshot of voters in the state. Of course there’ll always be some variance between reality and the sample’s report of its vote a year and a half ago–but not a 23 point variance.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

vt12. Did you vote in the 2012 presidential election, did something prevent you from voting, or did you choose not to vote? (IF VOTED, ASK: Did you vote for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or someone else?)

If in the south an ObamaCare loving military insulting Senator can be re-elected over a decent man…. I’m glad I’m in Texas and I say build a 360 degree wall and as Marge Simpson said : “Build it higher than the sky, Homie, and deeper than hell!!”

So take that into account with this polling and the Times’ general hubris. They’re trying to get the eyes of their regular readers over to their new Upshot Blog, and the easiest way to do that is to give them some initial information they want to read that shows great news for the Democrats in November (and which is an outlier from the forecast Silver made a couple of weeks ago that got him branded a heretic on the left). Polls six-plus months out from Election Day not only are open to question, but are never verifiable, since so many things can happen in the ensuing time period. If the Times’ geek stats are still at odds with Silver post-Labor Day, that’s when they’ll actually start putting their own reputations on the line.

“the Times and Kaiser have produced a sample in Arkansas that reports they voted in 2012 for Romney over Obama–by one point. But Romney carried Arkansas in 2012 by 24 points. Similarly, the Kentucky sample is +3 Romney when reality was +23. The Louisiana sample is +3 Obama in a state Obama lost by 17, and the North Carolina sample is +7 Obama in a state he lost by 3.

The whole point of question 12 is to provide a reality test for the sample. That’s why they ask that question–we know what happened in 2012, so the only thing to be learned by asking the 2012 question of the sample is to ensure that it’s a reasonably accurate snapshot of voters in the state. Of course there’ll always be some variance between reality and the sample’s report of its vote a year and a half ago–but not a 23 point variance.”

so if the above sample from the poll is correct, all three senators are going down hard to defeat in a few months..

I do agree with Kristol. Polls should generally reflect the last election cycle with modest swings to reflect the current climate. If you were to have a +23 for the non-Obama voter then a little swing for Pryor because he is the incumbent and a little swing the other way for a typical mid-term electorate, this poll would look completely different.

Folks, the argument over 2012 isn’t whether the polls were correct; Obama got out his vote (@6.5M less than ’08), it was the stay at home conservative leaning voter (@2.5M less) that gave us 0′s second term.

If we want the Senate get out and vote GOP. Don’t turn your nose up if you don’t get your preferred candidate.

Captain Cotton is currently fighting back against ads the WAPO described as lies. He has a clever ad airing that kills Pryor on his statements about Cotton’s military service. Arkansas is, like so many states, split into enclaves, with conservatives currently and clearly in the majority. If one polled, say, West Memphis and the southeast precincts of Little Rock, I could understand these results.This poll is, I believe as an Arkansan, an outlier.

At this stage of the election cycle, Polls are used not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. The idea is to create an aura of invincibility for demorats and to dispirit conservatives. I do not believe this poll.

If the NYT told me the sky was blue, I would take a piece of paper that I KNEW to be blue, put a hole in it, and then go outside to compare it to the sky. As the expression from my childhood says: “The lie like a rug!”

You do realize the other side says the equivalent about any Fox poll they don’t like.

The GOP shouldn’t feel confident that all it has to do is scream “Obamacare!” and independents are going running to pull the R lever. Just like everyone has their own economy, everyone has their own healthcare situation.

Yes I hate the lies of Obama. Yes I hate ACA’s disincentive to work. Yes I hate the law’s inefficiencies and uncertainty. Yes I hate the dissembling of the press in supporting the law.

But in the end, it may wind up being not all that bad for me. That’s true for a lot of other people. And they’re not disposed to voting against the Dems like I am.

This poll may be wrong, but I’m just not feeling this whole “wave election” thing many have talked about. The GOP has no message whatsoever. The media is propping Obama up and basically making things up to boost his numbers. And the base is disgusted with the back-stabbing GOP. All of these things don’t give me a whole lot of confidence.

In other words, the Times and Kaiser have produced a sample in Arkansas that reports they voted in 2012 for Romney over Obama–by one point. But Romney carried Arkansas in 2012 by 24 points. Similarly, the Kentucky sample is +3 Romney when reality was +23. The Louisiana sample is +3 Obama in a state Obama lost by 17, and the North Carolina sample is +7 Obama in a state he lost by 3.

So if we adjust the Senate numbers according to the difference between the NYT sample and reality in the 2012 Presidential race, then:

In AR: Pryor’s 10-point lead becomes a 13-point deficit.
In KY: McConnell’s tie becomes a 20-point lead.
In NC: Hagan’s 2-point lead becomes an 8-point deficit.

The situation is more complex in LA due to the lack of a primary, but Landrieu’s 42-18 lead over the leading Republican is more like a 4-point lead, and with 40% either undecided or voting for someone else, there will probably be a runoff in December in a state where both Romney and Gov. Jindal won easily.

But kudos to the NY Slimes for winning the Mark Twain “Damned Lies and Statistics” Award.

Yes and I am as guilty as anyone of that. But those polls consistently showed Obama ahead, or at least they did for most of the run-up to the election. This one is a complete outlier as well as internally consistent.

That is a total of 82% which means 18% on the fence. That’s huge for an incumbent Senator, especially one that has been there since the 2002 election. We will see if this tightens up but 18% undecided with a Senator who has been in office for 12 years is pretty bad. Late undecideds almost always break away from the incumbent.